At last, I finally see. Baby Boomers are everything wrong with society.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think he means the idea that capitalism has to lead to corporate oligarchy, which I'd also argue with you about. The collusion between government and the corporate elite which allow for the conditions as they exist today is counter to almost all philosophical capitalism, especially in terms of Smith/Rand/Friedman (though the latter two also sang loudly about deregulation, which might not be such a good idea)

I view this whole bullshit the Republicans and their on again, off again girlfriend Obama is pushing, that regulation is causing all the economic and labor problems being akin to the same "trust in lawlessness" crap. By their logic you could increase public safety by decriminalizing theft, rape, and murder.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
[...] the Republicans and their on again, off again girlfriend Obama[..]

Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I was actually going more for a make certain people uncomfortable, flip/flop equated with gender bender kind of thing. Even people who gave me shit for calling him a snake during the election two years ago have gotta admit at this point that the guy's face should be in the dictionary under the definition for loyal opposition. I don't need to insult or degrade him. He degrades himself every time he tries to pass for a progressive or a liberal.

Oh I agree with Obama being a tool, you just shouldn't insult women.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh I agree with Obama being a tool, you just shouldn't insult women.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Does this mean I can't call Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and the rest of their ilk Republicunts?

No you can insult specific women for valid reasons. You just shouldn't insult womankind by using implications of femininity for traits you perceive as bad in man. Like how saying "Oh Obama, he's such a girl" implies there's something wrong with being a girl, at the very least that it is a bad thing for a man to behave like one.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you trying to insult or degrade him by associating him with femininity?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Out of all the things he said you would specifically go for that. laughcry

Well we did the "Capitalism is evil, socialism but rebranded as social democracy is the way to go" - "NO, social democracy has its own failings, capitalism is better equipped for many things" - etc. enough times, I thought I'd address something else that bothers me, I assume he agrees anyways, it's a "left" issue, but most people just don't think about it all the time, I fail at it a lot, and I like when people point me to it (well not like, cause I am stubborn and arrogant, but my rational self is grateful, although my whole self won't show it).

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Which is exactly why Lenin said that Fascism is Capitalism in decline.

ah, yes, the man who grew up in a plutucratic/monarchistic-oligarchy of pre-soviet Russia, in an era where Capitalism didn't exist in any form yet (hell, colonialism and the age of empires was still the dominant political discourse in Europe), who eventually self-identified as being diametrically opposed to capitalism...

while we are at it, why not look to Rand as an expert on Syndaclism, Julian Assange on the necessity of state secrets, or MLK about the use of artillery on a battlefield.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If you exist in a state of nature, people inevitably band together for mutual gain, make deals, and you end up in a state of war with the biggest warlord ruling as king and squashing all opposition.

I never took you for a Hobbesian...

long story short, I would disagree, namely with the idea of a "state of nature" or any sort of essentialization of humans as "this is how we were in nature"

Originally posted by Darth Jello
How is the market place any different?

how is man in a free market different from man in a state of nature?

Originally posted by inimalist
I never took you for a Hobbesian...

long story short, I would disagree, namely with the idea of a "state of nature" or any sort of essentialization of humans as "this is how we were in nature"

You seriously can't see that ten men with clubs might do better than one man with a club? Even Rand was able to recognize that using a group was the only way to succeed against group.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seriously can't see that ten men with clubs might do better than one man with a club? Even Rand was able to recognize that using a group was the only way to succeed against group.

Well, the "warlord" thing, is just not a necessity. What we know for sure though is what "the state of nature" can lead to. We are living it. And for a relatively thorough development please refer to what is colloquially known as "history".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You seriously can't see that ten men with clubs might do better than one man with a club? Even Rand was able to recognize that using a group was the only way to succeed against group.

sure

I'd challange that there is some natural inclination in people to form groups for the purpose of killing others, or that violence is the obvious outcome from such organization.

more numbers makes it easier to oppress others, but I don't think oppression is the "natural state" of man

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, the "warlord" thing, is just not a necessity.

The market disagrees with you. Having a CEO increases the efficiency of a corporation dramatically. Or did you think businesses were run entirely by the invisible hand?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd challange that there is some natural inclination in people to form groups for the purpose of killing others, or that violence is the obvious outcome from such organization.

Scarcity plus capacity for violence. The progression is clear. I hate the word "natural" with a passion but I would call it an inevitable outcome of existing. Since an organization has great capacity for violence it is able (and sometimes willing) to stop more violence with the threat of retaliation.

But then we're back to having a government again.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The market disagrees with you. Having a CEO increases the efficiency of a corporation dramatically. Or did you think businesses were run entirely by the invisible hand?

T-that....makes no sense.

It doesn't? It makes a lot of sense to me. I think human beings are at their most efficient when their efforts are focused by a leader.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It doesn't? It makes a lot of sense to me. I think human beings are at their most efficient when their efforts are focused by a leader.

It doesn't make sense in the context it was said, that is in response to me talking about what King Kandy said.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It doesn't? It makes a lot of sense to me. I think human beings are at their most efficient when their efforts are focused by a leader.

A competent leader.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't make sense in the context it was said, that is in response to me talking about what King Kandy said.

Originally posted by Robtard
A competent leader.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It doesn't make sense in the context it was said, that is in response to me talking about what King Kandy said.

A warlord is the leader of his war... team?

In that way he's comparable to a CEO or the head of a government.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Do you mean Inimalist? yaaaaa

No, I mean King Kandy, when he said

you end up in a state of war with the biggest warlord ruling as king and squashing all opposition

That is what I disagreed with, not with the usefulness of leadership or hierarchy.

And the "i" isn't capitalized! 😛